Thursday, 28 January 2010

How we know they're planning to take out cash..... the final piece of evidence

I'd like to apologise for the dweeby, technical, accounting nature of this post.  Hopefully it will make sense the way I describe it below.  If not please don't hesitate to contact me and I'll try to explain what I mean.  Despite it being technical, I thinks it's important.

The digging around that I and others have done since the bond prospectus was published on 11th January shows conclusively that the Glazers will be able to take huge sums out of United now the old bank debt has been replaced with bonds.

What's obviously harder to prove is that they intend to exercise these rights and to what extent.  We know for certain that they intend to take the Ronaldo money out, it's mentioned on pages 27, 44 and 130 of the prospectus.  We know they are going to grab Carrington, sell it and make the club that built it from its own funds pay to use it, that's on pages 78, 79 and 156 amongst others.

But maybe that's it. Maybe just because they've got the right to take 50% of the cash profits they won't exercise that right.  What sort of smoking gun would you need to find to the prospectus to make a convincing case that not only can the Glazers pillage Manchester United to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds, but that they intend to?

I think you'd need to find something like this:

This small print appears on pages 43 of the prospectus with the same routing of money also described on page 44 and is defined on page 158 as the "Closing Funds Flow".

For clarity, taking this small print together with other bits of the prospectus, this is what will happen to the £504m of proceeds from the bond issue:

£504m raised
of which:

£15m paid in costs to the banks that organised the bond issue
£489m left in MU Finance
of this £489m:
"approximately £400m" is passed to Manchester United Ltd (the rest goes straight to Red Football Ltd to pay off bank debt).
Manchester United Ltd lends the £400m to Red Football Joint Venture Ltd (the parent company of Red Football and the company with the famous PIKs).  The loan is indefinite and interest free.
Red Football Joint Venture Ltd pushes the £400m back into its subsidiary Red Football Ltd (the company with the bank debt) by making a "capital contribution".

Red Football Ltd uses the £400m it has just received (together with more of Manchester United's cash, to pay off the rest of the bank debt and some of the losses on the interest rate derivative).

Now when I first read this clause it didn't seem very important.  I didn't know why they were doing all this money moving, I guessed (wrongly) that it was something to do with tax.  When I had some free time I asked an expert, a senior accountant at one of the big 4 firms in Manchester (thanks mate).  Being a qualified professional he worked it out pretty quickly.  And when he told me the answer it all made sense.  Let me try to explain:

Under English company law, there are restrictions on companies paying dividends.  It is not generally possible to pay dividends from what are called "non-distributable reserves" without a complex and costly "capital reorganisation".  Without boring you with the detail, a company's net worth (it's "shareholders funds") are divided into different "reserves".  A company (even if it has the cash) cannot easily pay dividends from its "share premium reserve".

This is what the various "reserves" that make up Red Football Ltd's net worth ("shareholders funds") looked like at 30th September 2009:

So despite having a net surplus of over £450m, Red Football Ltd can't really pay dividends because it all sits in the "share premium reserve".  If it had a positive number in the "profit and loss reserve" it could pay dividends up to this amount, but this number is negative (the product of over four years of losses).

So how do companies in this position get around this problem?

One way is for the company's owner to make a "capital contribution".  The owner just pumps money into the company (no new shares are created).  Intuitively you can see why this money from the parent and placed in a separate "Capital contribution reserve" can be paid back to the parent in dividends, it is after all the parent's money.

So suddenly, the £400m flow around the Red Football group makes perfect sense.  The new reserve created by this inflow into Red Football's account allows the company to pay dividends to its parent Red Football Joint Venture Ltd.  It has no other possible purpose (and let me add, this is a normal method of creating "distributable reserves" and is perfectly legal and normal).

And the most important thing about this accounting cash shuffling is this, it creates £400m of dividend paying capacity.  Not just the £70m identified upfront in the prospectus, or the extra £25m dividend they can pay that is hidden on page 130 of the prospectus.  £400m.

Still not 100% certain the Glazers are planning to asset strip our club for years to come?

Some simple questions: why bother creating the accounting room to grab £400m and and pay it out to the owners?  
If asset stripping is a scare story with no foundation, why have thy deliberately made it possible?

If you were a benevolent owner who put the interests of the club first, would you create the accounting mechanism to pay out £400m?
You don't need to be a knowledgeable accountant like my mate to know the answers......



Anonymous said...

Scary stuff indeed. Thank you for a clear and concise breakdown. It would appear that the Glazers will NOT be leaving for some considerable time. United are doomed

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the effort in making this understandable. It's still possible to believe the "We'll never die" chant thanks to supporters like you.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for helping me TRY to understand the complex financial shenanigans that the Glazer's are employing, and legally too!!! My simple brain still cannot take in the fact that a bunch of asset strippers can legitimately take over a profitable, well run football club, with BORROWED money, as they don't have sufficient funds of their own, saddle said profitable football club with their own personal debts, run up in acquiring company, and it's all legal!

If I hear one more radio/TV commentator ask why Man United fans are complaining about the Glazer's, as, during their watch, we've won 3 Premier League titles, reached 2 Champions League finals, winning 1, 2 League Cups and FIFA Club World Cup! Do they not realise that debts of over £700m will eventually bring the club down to the level of such as Portsmouth et al. We will also be forced to sell players in the future, to pay interest payments on the Glazer's debts.

Our only hope is, like Man City, to be taken over by a WEALTHY owner, but that it not without its problems.

I fear for my club

Hakan said...

Excellent post! Thank you!

Anonymous said...

Not sure if I really understand this. As far as I understand the £700 mill in loans consist of bankloans of £500 mill secured on the football club and £200 mill secured on the Glazers. I thought that the bond issue was to fund the repayment of the £500 mill secured on the club, as these bank loans were very restrictive. So I dont understand where the £400 mill comes from if the money raised by the sale of bonds is used to repay the banks.

Stevie said...

They have to be stopped, i dont if it's possible but the whole of the united support needs to take a stand against them by boycotting and putting them out of business. We cant have more years of this.

andersred said...

Just to clarify for anonymous person no. 4.

This "movement" of money is just what happens to the cash before is used to pay off the bank debt. It's not another use of the money.

The important thing is that this shuffling can only have one purpose and that's to allow £400m of dividends to be paid out of the club in the years to come.

We may be talking 10 years to use up this dividend paying "capacity", but that's not the point, you only move money around like this if you expect to take dividends out.

Hope that clears it up!


Anonymous said...

Like anonymous number 4 I was trying to understand the difference between the £400 Million's destination and am almost there. So what your saying is the money is routed through their company on the way to the banks instead of directly there. This then gives them the right to say well we put the £400 million in so can draw that back out in the future in the form of dividends?

andersred said...

That's exactly correct. For technical reasons Red Football can't pay dividends at the moment even if there's cash in the bank.

By routing the bond proceeds like this they correct this technical problem. You wouldn't do this (on this scale) unless you were determined to pay large dividends from future profits. It has no other purpose.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, what a load of crap. The give-away is your language, just like David Conn etc. Nothing is "hidden" in the prospectus. It's a bloody bond prospectus distributed all over the world. Is page 130 a special secret page that they don't give to anyone whose name matches the season ticket database? Thought not.

Stop giving anti-Glazer fans a bad name like MUST does. This is old news, as before. It's stupefyingly obvious that the bond money is supposed to leave the club, because it pays off the bank debts of the parent company. No-one in their right mind is pretending otherwise.

Also, from the sections I've seen it's not intended to keep the Ronaldo money and sell the training ground. It's listed as a possibility, which it *always was* - because they own us - as a legal obligation to bond investors. It doesn't state the money won't be available, or even that it's the same money. At least, not in parts that have been printed in easy to find places. Maybe you have the super-secret parts.

What do MUST hope to achieve now? FORCE the Glazers to sell by wearing different colours? And if they sell at a lower price than they bought, and they make up the difference with asset stripping... and the new owner also has to borrow... yeah, great result that will be.

United Rant said...

Excellent post and it's really important that those in the know keep the United support informed about what the Glazers are doing. Apathy and the 'wait and see' crowd have been the dominant voice for far far too long


Anonymous said...

I wanted to thank you for the time you have taken to investigate issue.

This is absolutely horrible news. There is no end to their greed. I understand that football has become a business, but unlike most businesses, the emotional bond is nowhere near that to what the fans of Man Utd feel.

On top of that the club and it's history is intrinsically woven into the fabric of the community.

The Glazers are ripping a hole into that Fabric and stripping it of money. I will pray for some miraculous intervention come 2017.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 29 January 2010 11:05

While you may be able to question the tone, fine details or interpretations in this analysis, it is impossible to ignore the core facts of our finances. Only a fool would bet against them taking as much money out of our club, for as long as they can manage.

You, it is very clear, have a personal agenda against MUST.

I urge everyone to ignore your personal gripe with the organization and instead focus on the main facts of the issue - which is that 75-100% of our profits are being taken out of the club and it will continue unless we join together and act.

Haakon said...

These £400m in dividends could partly be used to pay down the PIK notes I would suppose? No surprise there. Glazers PIK notes have always been Man Uniteds burden... not that it makes him any less of a twat!

andersred said...

To the "what a load of crap" poster:

I meant "hidden" as in "hidden in the small print". If you don't think things can be hidden in small print in documents then fair enough.

I have to say in your second paragraph you misunderstand my point. Of course the bond proceeds flow out of the club, their purpose is to repay the bank debt. No one is "pretending otherwise" as you say and neither am I.

What I am saying, and it is just true, is that by replacing the bank debt with bonds, the Glazers are now able to take additional money out of the club themselves in the form of dividends (see my original note on 18th January for details).

The scale of what they can take is staggering, hundreds of millions.

Taking the Ronaldo money (or if you prefer a random £95m in cash dividends totally unrelated to selling Ronaldo) and Carrington are part of these new rights under the bond covenants. They are NOT anything to do with what you call the "legal obligation to bond investors". You can see the distinction between the bond proceeds and the dividends on page 27 (under "Pro Forma Financial Information and Ratios Data") and page 43 ("Use of Proceeds")in the prospectus. Some of the typeface is small, some more normally sized.

You are correct that it only outlines "rights" to take Carrington and £95m in cash to pay in dividends into Red Football JV Ltd immediately after the bond deal closes. You think it might not happen? I'll bet you a pint they'll take it and we can see in year's time when the accounts come out whose right. If you had £200m of PIKs growing at 16.25% a year wouldn't you take it?

What MUST hope to achieve now is up to MUST, the details in the prospectus are just facts (to quote a famous waiter".

I'm very happy to discuss this with you in more detail if you want (


Anonymous said...

A bond prospectus is a technical document, which is intended to be read thoroughly. I think calling it "hiding" is implying some kind of scheming going on. THIS is why I have an issue with MUST and will probably withdraw my money and unsubscribe - they claim to be well organised, professional etc. and come out with misleading propaganda.

Regarding the bond issue MUST's main point, repeated in the press, was: "why would anyone want to take a bond in a club that's obviously a risk. investors want security." this is so transparently wrong-headed - investors want different levels of risk, and the premium reflects that. twice oversubscribed. hmmm. (also: turnover increases exceeding targets... hmmm.)

I don't even know what they hope to achieve with the opportunism - I feel the Glazers leaving now in a panic would be the worst thing for us.

What I meant about the document is that they are obligated to tell the bond holders about things that could happen that could affect the attractiveness/risk of the bond. The fact that this is down in black and white - because it has to be, legally - is no excuse for doom-mongering. You really think that, for example, they couldn't have refused to give the Ronaldo money for transfers before the bond? Come on. Press excitement and opportunism from MUST.

I'm not sure what you're saying about the dividends. You're implying that they will take 400m in dividends for themselves, right? That's what I'm talking about. This money pays off the bank debt (non-PIK). The debt is now in the form of a bond. It's more flexible, sure. That's probably a good thing overall, but it probably does make it easier for them to take other money out. BUT, and this is crucial, they OWN the club.

I don't understand why people keep reporting "they can take money out!" "they can pay themselves!". They OWN us. It's their company. Additionally, we would normally be paying shareholders and other directors too.

We will see this summer whether there really is no money for transfers, I think it's hard to call and that would indeed be a bad sign. The problem is that Fergie's excuse about the market last year was true - no one available at non-hyper-inflated prices (and I wouldn't have wanted Tevez anyway - not even for 20m). So either it's an excuse because there's no money, or just a coincidence. Of course, we will both see it differently but this summer is a good test.

I'm not "shut my eyes while we win". I'd rather we never knew them. But I feel it's necessary to be realistic about whether things are actually disastrous or just less good than before.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for explaining the ramifications, much appreciated.

It's a shame that some people are still not waking up to the fact that we're only headed in one direction, but they are entitled to that opinion so we have to respect that, even though we don't agree.

We can't afford for this to become Red vs. Red like 2005. If you want to take action then great, if you don't then that's your choice.

Green and Gold until the club is sold!!

Anonymous said...

Thank you for all of your're educating many of us.

Anonymous said...

To Anon at 1147

I agree with both points of view, but it is obvious the owners are now in a much better position to extract our money to pay off their personal PIK debts than they were before.

We could wait and see if they do, but by then we will have lost Carrington and possibly OT.

Waiting and seeing for the last 5 years has proved to be a bad strategy so I think MUST are spot on in preparing and executing an alternative strategy with the worst scenario in mind.

I fear what will happen by 2012 if we are fooled by Fergie using the overdraft and spending 50 mil this summer (which incidentaly adds to the debt mountain).

Our owners may seem stupid but they are pretty smart when it comes to smokescreens.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 13:42:

Good to see some balance from you, that's really all I'm after from everyone else.

I think I'm still more hopeful than that: I don't think we've gone down the drain the last few years at all (not just talking about the trophies). If Fergie only spent overdraft money, I wouldn't consider that to be "fine, there's money available" but neither would I consider it disaster. I think the Glazers as well as the team are entering a transition period: this is the time they need to get shot of the PIK and make inroads into the rest. If a lower-interest overdraft is a short-term solution for that, so be it. I'm interested in sustainability for the club, which encourages more wait-and-see. Not really entirely satisfactory. Things are the moment, to me, look sustainable (CL qualification assumed....).

When people make leveraged buyouts, the whole point really is to say "we can run this more efficiently". Some things that fans consider bad are bound to happen but on the other hand make loads of sense from a business point of view (i.e. would still have made sense without American debt-ridden owners). I doubt they are stupid enough to think they can get away with not investing in the team. I don't think they'll sell OT (and I believe they said this specifically). They might sell Carrington I guess - would that be definitively a bad thing? Training grounds move and improve more frequently than stadia - maybe in the future not owning it would be a benefit besides the cash now?

Anonymous said...

Also; no-one is really saying what and how they hope this MUST plan will achieve. How will things be better after? Who will own us? Is wearing green and gold, however nice an idea, going to achieve that aim?

The absolute best option seems to be being bought by some oil baron and turning into another plaything spunking money all over the place. Marginal preferable I guess, but hardly FC United.

DamianP said...

"I'm not sure what you're saying about the dividends. You're implying that they will take 400m in dividends for themselves, right? That's what I'm talking about. This money pays off the bank debt (non-PIK). The debt is now in the form of a bond. It's more flexible, sure. That's probably a good thing overall, but it probably does make it easier for them to take other money out. BUT, and this is crucial, they OWN the club."

With respect, you're criticizing others, and yet this very paragraph suggests that you haven't really understood the issue that is being discussed. That's perfectly fine, by the way, as this isn't easy for most people to understand, but it is slightly ironic that you are lecturing people from a position of ignorance. And it does undermine your argument, somewhat.

It would have been possible to use the bonds to replace the senior debt without first transferring that money between companies. That they are doing so, and given that they can't pay dividends to themselves at this minute due to financial rules, it strongly suggests that they intend to continue to take money out of the club.

Clearly we don't know how much, but we do know that they have loaned tens of millions from the club, already. However, this will now allow anything up to £400m to paid out in dividends to the Glazer's, themselves. And we already know that our net transfer spend in recent years has essentially been zero, so it is perfectly natural that many fans are concerned about what the future holds.

While you are of course correct that they own the club, you must also know that, as the very people that they are relying on to pay for everything, we have every right to object, and if we deem it necessary, to withdraw our support from the club.

If you are happy to pay hundreds of millions of pounds of your own money for the Glazer's to own the club and to "loan" themselves money that could have been spent on improving the team, by all means, don't let me stop you. But I am under no obligation to join you in doing so, and I have every right to complain about the fact that a club that had tens of millions in the bank before the takeover now has a debt of more than £700m.

I understand perfectly well that for some people there is a sense of, "well, what can we really do about it", and, "they own the club now, so they can do what they like", but that's simply not true. The entire relationship between the club and the fans has changed. There's no question that it is fairly normal business practice and that it is also perfectly legal, but that says absolutely nothing about our obligation to continue to fund the Glazer's plans for our club, without having any say in how the club is run. Of course, money was previously being paid out to shareholders, but many people were unhappy about that, too, and that doesn't mean that we cannot object now, in any case.

So, as I've said, if you're happy to allow the Glazer's to take any and all of the money that you pay in to the club — that's assuming that you actually do — and to use that to pay off enormous debts and to loan themselves tens of millions, rather than spend it on the team, which is undoubtedly at least part of the reason that we are so willing to support our football clubs, financially, that's entirely your own business.

I just happen to disagree, that's all.

Anonymous said...

andersred much appriciated the effort it must have taken to go through everything and from what you say it seems you went through it a few times.

Is there nothing to stop them doing this? From what you say the structure of everything seems different from what I thought, the Glazers own a company which owns operates/owns a company which owns the club?If thats wrong please correct me but what I want to ask is there not regulations,to prevent tax evasion, money laundering etc, on moving money from company to company and loaning money to yourself if your a company director? Espicially when the terms basically say you can pay it whenever you feel like.


olly said...

andersred,thanks for helping me get my head round this issue,scary stuff,needs some ideas how to try and fight these people maybe ask the blue annon who seems to have issues with must,seems like were in it for the long haul,keep up the good work...LUHG...MUST...MUFC

Anonymous said...

To Anders
Well done for your analysis & research on this important matter. Keep up the good work. Your analysis is very beneficial on explaining the possible implications. I for one will be wearing a green/gold scarf at forcthcoming home games.

Anonymous said...

MUST is the only way to gather the necessary numbers of people. if it takes years we have to have an end game and that is fan ownership or serious representation under a sympathetic regime. we should have done it years ago when we had the chance. we are being used because our number is many. lets use that against them. UNITE

Anonymous said...

thanks mate i agree whole heartedly, i also take note of what anon was saying. fact remains why transfer the money if they have no intention of removing it from the club.
They could have paid off the debt without transfering it, so why.
Carrington is definately a goner,
As for o/t it probably wont be sold but, whats the betting in the not too distant future it becomes the nike stadium or the coca cola stadium.. watch this space..

andersred said...

Thanks for all the comments, positive and negative.

The fact MUST chose to publicise this blog on the day I posted a really quite dry and technical comment is a bit unfortunate actually.

If people need a little more convincing that our situation is not just "how things are" and is a stain on football, please read the "half a billion £s...." post on 18th January. It shows why the "flexibility" of the bonds is actually all about releasing cash from the club to pay the PIKs and enrich the Glazer family.

If you’d prefer the same work but re-written by someone who can write, check out David Conn in the Guardian or Paul Kelso in the Telegraph both on 18th January.

Two more things from me; firstly, a quick thing on being "naive". If you look around the web, a lot of the criticism of people like me (and a lot of journalists) who slag off the financial situation at United appears to go (if I my paraphrase):

"It's a leveraged buyout, they own the club, none of this is a surprise, its business, grow up!"

Let's be very clear. Crystal clear. I know what a leveraged buyout (“LBO”) is. I've invested in private equity funds for my clients, I've bought into companies being IPOed by private equity firms. It's my job.

I'm under no allusions about what LBOs are or how they work. But for five years, Gill and the Glazers' spokesman have talked about what a great position the club is in. That's not true. An LBO does not strengthen a football club in any way. What I've been trying to do is explain as best I can what this structure means for United. How it means that one year's interest/PIK roll up/management fees to the Glazer family totals equals every penny spent on tickets by United's 54,000 season ticket holders each year (just mull that over for a second).

The Glazers have done nothing illegal, nothing that wasn’t common practice in the US or UK during the credit boom. But legal and normal does not equal right.

Final point. What can we do? Right now, not much other than spreading (sorry waiter) the FACTS to other reds and not fighting amongst ourselves. We all know something has changed since 11th January, the mood has shifted. If we keep on showing our anger, peacefully and with class, then the people out there thinking about new ownership structures (and I promise there are serious people doing just that right now) will push their plans forward. And then we can all give up this shit and go back to being fans.....

Longer comment that I’d hoped (sorry)!

Take care.


brom said...

there seems to be a plethora of posters named anonymous. if all these anonymi gave themselves a less common pseudonym, it might help despairing readers identify and follow the threads.

brom said...

question:- if buying a season ticket for old trafford, spending at the megasore (sic) or sending a child to manchester united soccer schools plays into the hands of the glazers how can i live with my conscience?

Robert said...

Anders well done for taking all the trouble. As a bricklayer you will appreciate that I also have a tremendous capacity for this technical, financial webweaving ! Seriously, what you have made clear and stand-out (much clearer than any other contributor or journalist) is the intention behind the plan. Irrefutably, we (our club = our money) are going to take a pasting from these greedy pilfering parasites. The intent is there for all to see. This is a watershed moment for our club. WE MUST KEEP THIS MOMENTUM GOING AND GROWING.

DanO said...

Anders I take my hat off to you in what you have done here in educating the majority of us.
It paints a terrifying picture of our future and one that needs to be countered swiftly.

scorer said...

The bottom line is you've raised cash in the form of bonds which are technically another debt... unfortunately a more expensive debt in terms of the cost. Also a (capital) debt that has to be repaid at some time.
If the Glazers take the funds from the club through the means described in this OP then quite frankly you are shafted unless someone comes with a spare £1bn to put you back on the straight and narrow.
In my opinion there is absolutely nothing you can do now. You sell out ths stadium every week, you have a massive global footprint that would be hard to increase. Unless something dramatic happens in the next 18 months you could easily become the next Leeds United (Bye Bye Rooney).
A very difficult position to recover from.
Your gonna need all the luck in the world.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for such detailed analysis.As I am not very well versed with finances, this might be a stupid question to ask but from what I understand, this might not be a bad thing after all...Yes, it gives an option for Glazers to loot the club for upto 300mn later (Removing the negative 100mn at the moment)but at the moment, its a good thing for them to get access to the money if its there so that they could pay off the PIK completely. If the Red Football Ltd has 450mn of cash which is not a debt, I would be much more relaxed about our debt situation as I know there are some funds which could be used in case of any catastrophe and having access to that fund is important and hence I think, this might be a good idea to release it. Let me know if I have made a mistake.

andersred said...

Hi anonymous at 13.57.

Thanks for your comment.

The money the Glazers can take out of the club in the future comes from the club's profits each year. The accounting movements I described will allow £400m to be paid in dividends in the years to come. It's not money that's there now (except an initial £100m).

I don't agree that there is anything positive about this. It could allow them to pay off the PIKs, but these are meant to be their problem not United's (something David Gill repeated yesterday).

In a world without the Glazers, ALL those future profits could go back into the club to build the squad, keep ticket prices low etc.

The need to pay the PIKs off makes the Glazers very bad owners for United. Almost all owners of English football clubs put money into their club, almost uniquely the Glazers take money out.

What would happen if they failed to pay the PIKs? United would be owned by hedge funds motivated only by making a return.

I'm not sure we'd notice a difference!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the response. I understand that there is nothing good about this but my main source of contention here is the below lines from your post

So despite having a net surplus of over £450m, Red Football Ltd can't really pay dividends because it all sits in the "share premium reserve".

Where is this surplus of 450m coming from? How come Reds Football Ltd is sitting on such a surplus of money when there is debt to be serviced on. My suggestion is only based on that. If Reds Football limited is sitting on a cash reserve but that cash reserve can not be used to service PIK (Whose interest will anyway be taken from the club only)only because its illegal at the moment, then this re-routing makes sense. Thats all...


andersred said...

Hi there.

The £450m is the total net value of all of Red Football's assets. It isn't cash. The £450m is made up of assets (like OT, the squad, a bit of cash) less liabilities (debts and other money owed). The "assets" include some accounting elements like goodwill.

So you can view £450m as the net accounting (book) value of everything owned by Red Football.

The actual cash in September 2009 (last date we had information) was £146.6m, but a lot of this is walking out the door pretty quickly.

The moving of the bond proceeds I described doesn't change the net worth of Red Football, it just moves around various reserves to make paying dividends possible.

Hope that makes sense.


Anonymous said...

Thanks a lot...That clears it up. Yes, I am deeply worried by all that has come out in the last few months as well but am still hopeful and was trying to find a silver line among the clouds.

Anonymous said...

deeply worrying i think even the wait and see brigade are finally cottoning on to this sham the Glazers have created.

Anonymous said...

These guys were shady when they bought the Tampa Bay Bucs in our NFL.

When some people heard they bought more of your team, we knew they would screw it up.

These people are just greed driven people. Too bad they're from my country.

Anonymous said...

As a qualified chartered accountant, chartered tax adviser and corporate treasurer, I could reply to this chain with a number of different 'hats' on.

The long and short of it though is that Andersred is spot on with the £400m point. There is absolutely 100% no other reason to do this than for future divi extraction.

And on the Carrington point - there is no reason at all for a carve out in the bond docs unless there is a well formulated plan to avail oneself of the carve out in due course.....

Anonymous said...

What I find most disconcerting about all this, is david Gill's reassurance that everything is fine. Man-u is in good hands.
Man-u's debt is so big it cannot be serviced long term on it's own income alone and the glazer's don't have any other income as all their other business interests in the states are about to go under.
Why else would they take out every penny they can out of man-u unless it's all they have? As things get worse for them in the states, they will take out more and more, strip what they can and try to trade their way out of trouble in the states until there no assets left.
Either Davis Gill is lying or he is Naive.

Blogger said...

I've just installed iStripper, so I can watch the sexiest virtual strippers on my desktop.